NOOZHAWK: What specific steps would you take to straighten out Santa Barbara County’s finances and balance the budget?
DAN SECORD: Santa Barbara County currently has a $40 million dollar deficit; this is the third consecutive year of deficit. We have to align spending with income and stop the spending problem in the county.
There are certain steps I’d institute early in 2011:
» Get the Board of Supervisors to appoint a finance committee to ensure that the board is watching income and expenses on a monthly rather than an annual basis. Work with staff to identify projects that can be deferred or eliminated until fiscal times get better.
» Stop the practice of the county purchasing, for cash, vacation time from the employees.
» Review the true need for take-home vehicles by county employees.
» Consider consolidation of services in the county. Consolidation of information technology functions alone could save $9 million.
» Consider redesign of the county purchasing functions to streamline and economize the process.
» Freeze hiring for all non-public safety.
NOOZHAWK: Are structural budget reforms needed? How would you implement them?
DS: A structural deficit means that naturally generated income (property taxes and fees) is not sufficient to cover expenditures. A structural deficit is not a one-time event but requires either reducing expenditures or increasing income. I think structural budget reforms are needed by the county, particularly focusing on the area of spending. The county is currently spending about $100,000 a day more than it is taking in. This situation is not sustainable and will drive our county toward bankruptcy. I feel that the county has a spending problem rather than an income problem.
There is a need to align spending with income. I would implement budget reforms through making serious cuts in the county spending commitments so we can sustain ourselves without the pain of deficit-fixing year after year. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
NOOZHAWK: Forgive the grammar, but are there any things that Santa Barbara County government should do less of?
DS: If I am elected as your supervisor I would immediately move to make a priority list of county expenditures and make choices keeping the most vital areas, such as public safety (Fire Department, Sheriff’s Department) and public works (keeping roads and areas around schools maintained).
Most of the requests for county funds have some merit, and in good economic times many of these requests can be met. Just like in a family, however, if patterns of spending more are formed they will continue unless someone stands up and says, “We are spending too much and we need to change our ways.” I say, “The data is in, we have a serious deficit and we as a county need to change our ways.”
In these tight economic times I would not spend county money on projects like the spay-neuter ordinance that our supervisors considered for more than a year, spending thousands on the task. The county policy makers should consider cost-accounting of projects up front (like a fiscal impact report) to reduce the county commitment to future spending.
NOOZHAWK: Santa Barbara County’s government employee pension levels seem unsustainable? Do you agree? How would you resolve the situation, either as a problem or a perception?
DS: The unfunded liability, translated, represents $10,000 per family of four in the entire county.
The first step to problem solving is problem recognition. The pensions are unsustainable, and are the elephant in the room. The Board of Supervisors and the employee groups know this and need to work together to craft a formula that, when applied, will reduce the pension costs to sustainable levels. The answer will require good will and trust on all the parties. This issue is not just a local problem to be solved but also a major issue at all levels of government.
The state and federal budget crisis will not cease, and will last for several years, so we might as well honestly acknowledge this problem now, and craft a solution that will last over time. Fair contracts tend to last.
Most of the employee groups have circled the wagons around the incumbent and will be contributing heavily to keep her, and her care of them, in place for as long as possible. During her first campaign, employee groups contributed more than $120,000 to her campaign, and she voted dutifully for their raises and benefits. Over her term, she has voted to give more than $45 million in raises to union groups. An excellent investment return for them.
NOOZHAWK: What kind of relationship should the Board of Supervisors have with the county’s chief executive officer? Is the board too influential or not influential enough? Why or why not?
DS: The board should make policy for implementation by the CEO. The present board majority is too influential and seems to be micromanaging the work of departments because the majority removed authority from the CEO and have confused the reporting lines of responsibility. One of the results of this form of governance is creation of competition for limited resources by department heads. These “deals” don’t happen in public. The decisions of the Board of Supervisors, many times, are political instead of practical so the board has taken a step backward and needs to let the county CEO do his job.
NOOZHAWK: How would you improve communication between county agencies, the Board of Supervisors and the public?
DS: I would start with the basic tenants of communication itself: 1) access, 2) simplicity, 3) responsiveness and 4) clarity. To improve communication among these groups they need to have ways of accessing each other that are simple and clear. In addition, there needs to be a culture of responsiveness developed.
County agency employees and the Board of Supervisors are “public servants” and should be responsive to communication from the public. In this Internet age there is no reason why any member of the public should not have simple and clear access through e-mail to any member of a county agency or a supervisor.
I would also encourage face-to-face contact with the initiation of public “office hours” on a regular basis at a time when it was possible for working people to visit.
NOOZHAWK: The county Department of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services is under severe distress. What’s the answer?
DS: The Department of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services budget is $78 million, 80 percent of which is supplied by the state of California and the federal government. Even so ADMHS cannot live within its means and requires General Fund support (of $3 million to $5 million each year) to survive. The county cannot modify the state side of the equation, but the county has to be squeaky clean, and it isn’t.
In this department, billing for reimbursement and accounting mistakes have generated liabilities to the state of California of more than $33 million and the state can demand this money at any time. The state audits are not timely so the problem could be worse than forecast. This department has poor management and needs restructuring. For example, ADMHS recently bungled the purchase of unproven computer software and then was at the mercy of a system that didn’t work, causing further financial damage.
It is interesting to note that most of the higher-ranking employees are new since 2008.
NOOZHAWK: Do you support offshore oil drilling in California? Why or why not? How about the Paredon project (Measure J) in Carpinteria? And the PXP Tranquillon Ridge Project?
DS: I do not support offshore oil drilling and believe the risk is too great. Extended-reach drilling can go seven miles, so all the oil in state waters can be reached by land-based drilling rigs, and transported by pipeline to a facility for refinement to state specifications, which avoids tanker risks.
The Earth Day fire, collapse and sinking of the oil island in the Gulf of Mexico has served to dampen the enthusiasm of those who asserted that drilling for oil off our shores is the way to achieve financial balance, maintain the pensions, and lead us all to the promised land. Oil drilling from land is preferable to drilling offshore, but safety has to be job one and the drillers have suffered a recent setback, which will take some time to overcome.
My opponent has supported drilling of oil from an offshore platform before the State Lands Commission in 2009.
NOOZHAWK: Should the county’s revenue-neutrality agreement with the city of Goleta be renegotiated? How will a renegotiation benefit county residents?
DS: The government code requires “revenue neutrality” between a new city and the county for income and services provided.
A group sought cityhood for Goleta from an unincorporated area of the county and negotiated the agreement in good faith. The group’s aim was control of land use and they achieved their aim, but at a great cost to those who followed. A renegotiation would be tedious, expensive and consumptive of scarce resources. Goleta seems to be moving forward with the agreement its founders crafted. There will be significant relief from the agreement in 2012. There is no benefit to the county in renegotiation.
NOOZHAWK: Which current or former supervisor do you admire most, and why?
DS: Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno (who is retiring this year) exemplifies the traits of a successful leader with his 50 years of public service, his most excellent customer service record, and his support of good government over the years. He understands the need for a coordinated approach to service delivery. He is fiscally conservative and has been out-voted too many times of late.
NOOZHAWK: There’s a big, blank wall behind the dais in the Board Hearing Room — an ideal location for a Noozhawk sign. The county could use the money. Would you support a Noozhawk sponsorship there?
DS: MTD advertises all sorts of things on the side of their buses so a “naming opportunity” for the marble wall might be appropriate. In these times of crisis, an appropriate competition could be held, in which Noozhawk would have to compete.
Additional Resources
Click here for Dan Secord’s campaign Web site
Click here for 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf’s answers.